“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice.

Here is a curious thing.

Since 2007 our population has risen by what seems a healthy 14.8%, our emissions of carbon dioxide are out of step in rising only by 2.8% and our per capita emissions have fallen by 10%.

Our energy efficiency has improved.

Demonstrating leadership to the world is accomplished.

Trouble neither our farmers nor our poor.

Let commerce flourish.

Our poor will be poorer should we fail to flourish.

Trust our farmers to retain their hard-won efficiency.

Let energy prices fall where they will.

Let energy be found when we need it.

59
Leave a Reply

avatar
58 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Brett KeaneBrett KeaneRichard TreadgoldMaggy WassilieffBobD Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Simon
Guest
Simon

You have confirmed that reducing per capita CO2 emissions need not reduce productivity. Efficiency gains persist and there are still more to be found. The marginal cost of renewables is almost zero once the infrastructure is in place.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Hydro is good because it is both renewable and dispatchable – i.e you can turn it on and off at will – like peak load gas turbine plants. Wind and solar are not dispatchable, so require backup plant for when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.

The UK is providing diesel generators as backup plant for wind. (STOR – Short term operational reserve)

Stephanie Hawking
Guest
Stephanie Hawking

When all these are finally tallied objectively and become widely known, bully-boy lobbyists like you will be reviled—laymen and scientists alike.

On the contrary, as people see heatwaves every couple of years, disastrous droughts, catastrophic fires followed by floods everyone except the insane will see the scientists were right.

The world is moving to renewables.

It will take time and there will be hiccups. Hiccups we can deal with but time is running out.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Your last paragraph is nonsense Richard. This is a basic primer that will hopefully clear up your misconceptions: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/news/2018/0410.html

Simon
Guest
Simon

All you have to do is get to Slide 20 Richard. The key point is that CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas at the at the altitudes and wavelengths that radiation escapes to space. This stuff is not hard Richard, it’s been well understood for over 120 years.

Stephanie Hawking
Guest
Stephanie Hawking

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html The world has warmed more than one degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution. The Paris climate agreement — the nonbinding, unenforceable and already unheeded treaty signed on Earth Day in 2016 — hoped to restrict warming to two degrees. The odds of succeeding, according to a recent study based on current emissions trends, are one in 20. If by some miracle we are able to limit warming to two degrees, we will only have to negotiate the extinction of the world’s tropical reefs, sea-level rise of several meters and the abandonment of the Persian Gulf. The climate scientist James Hansen has called two-degree warming “a prescription for long-term disaster.” Long-term disaster is now the best-case scenario. Three-degree warming is a prescription for short-term disaster: forests in the Arctic and the loss of most coastal cities. Robert Watson, a former director of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has argued that three-degree warming is the realistic minimum. Four degrees: Europe in permanent drought; vast areas of China, India and Bangladesh claimed by desert; Polynesia swallowed by the sea; the Colorado River thinned to a trickle; the American Southwest largely uninhabitable. The… Read more »

Stephanie Hawking
Guest
Stephanie Hawking

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/analyses/attribution-of-the-2018-heat-in-northern-europe/Attribution of the 2018 heat in northern Europe Home / Analyses / Attribution of the 2018 heat in northern Europe Key findings The heat (based on observations and forecast) is very extreme near the Arctic circle, but less extreme further south: return periods are about 10 years in southern Scandinavia and Ireland, five years in the Netherlands From past observations and models we find that the probability of such a heatwave to occur has increased everywhere in this region due to anthropogenic climate change, although in Scandinavia this increase was not visible in observations until now due to the very variable summer weather. We estimate that the probability to have such a heat or higher is generally more than two times higher today than if human activities had not altered climate. Due to the underlying warming trend even record breaking events can be not very extreme but have relatively low return times in the current climate. With global mean temperatures continuing to increase heat waves like this will become even less exceptional Here we present an attribution study of the ongoing heat wave made in near real time using well assessed methodologies. It… Read more »

Stephanie Hawking
Guest
Stephanie Hawking

Carbon dioxide is 0,04% of the atmosphere and is the most important greenhouse gas. Why?

Think. Earth would not be +15C without the greenhouse effect. It would be -18C. How much water vapour would there be?

Mr Treadgold. Say there are 60,000 scientists publishing in the scientific literature. Experts. Some have spent a lifetime studying climate science. You know nothing and expect to be taught in 5 minutes.

The science is changing every month. Your views are wrong. Total nonsense in fact.

Simon
Guest
Simon

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/news/2018/0410.html explains why CO2 is the most important.
Why are you still denying the water vapour feedback mechanism? Warmer air is capable of holding more water vapour. Think back to your sixth form chemistry experiments. How much water vapour do you think is contained in the atmosphere above the permanently cold dry valleys of Antarctica?

Andy
Guest
Andy

“The science is changing every month”

Well, that settles that then

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

Indeed, the WV RH must keep pace with any rising T, in order for the CAGW to be occuring. As the tropical hotspot must warm, they being linked. But that is part of what Warmista must prove, and they cannot. End of story, that would be if we were dealing with honest folk……….?

Quite laughable to see failed Court arguments used in CAGW’s favour. As with Monckton’s brilliant trap, they walked into it and lack the noos to know it. Winning is such fun, but it does feel a bit like poking retards with sticks in this case. If only they were not such dangerous and nasty little beasts, I would refrain out of pity.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

The AMOC is about to bite them on the rear end. Many more folk will die because warmists raised power prices fo no good reason. That is set in stone now, and there will be a price.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I thought my response was suitably Lewis Carroll-esque for the post.

KillerBean
Guest
KillerBean

“The climate scientist James Hansen has called two-degree warming “a prescription for long-term disaster.” Long-term disaster is now the best-case scenario. Three-degree warming is a prescription for short-term disaster: forests in the Arctic and the loss of most coastal cities. Robert Watson, a former director of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has argued that three-degree warming is the realistic minimum. Four degrees: Europe in permanent drought; vast areas of China, India and Bangladesh claimed by desert; Polynesia swallowed by the sea; the Colorado River thinned to a trickle; the American Southwest largely uninhabitable. The prospect of a five-degree warming has prompted some of the world’s leading climate scientists to warn of the end of human civilization.”

Is this the same James Hanson that said in 30 years time we will all be toast, 30 years ago?

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/08/05/the-spiralling-environmental-cost-of-our-lithium-battery-addiction/#more-38056

The green flop poisoning those it does not manage to freeze.
Quite curious for sure.

Stephanie Hawking
Guest
Stephanie Hawking

Treadgold, you know nothing about climate science. Do you know any science at all? What science is, how it works?

What percentage of the human body is the element iron? Is it important? (Will your answer be, “You tell me”?)

CO2 is the key greenhouse gas. Changes in the Sun and orbits may trigger temperature changes but CO2 controls the temperature on Earth, via the greenhouse effect. That is standard science. Only deniers disbelieve it.

Earth is retaining more energy as the CO2 level rises. Some areas are much much hotter. You just ignore the evidence rational people accept. You would claim you were sucking an ice-block if someone stuck a red-hot poker up your rrrs.

BobD
Guest
BobD

“CO2 controls the temperature on Earth, via the greenhouse effect.” Actually, not as much as you make out. According to NASA, 70% of the net heat energy emitted by the earth (which is 17% of incoming solar insolation) escapes directly to space. As the surface warms, the emission of heat increases by the fourth power, which is a pretty significant increase. The heat energy is well able to leave the planet. This is obvious to all: on a cold clear morning following a warm spell the temperatures plummet immediately. Only about 5% of the incoming solar insolation is actually affected at all by GHG when leaving. Of that, less than half actually affects the surface temperature, since most is re-emitted either upwards or sideways, and eventually to space. So in theory, yes, GHGs absorb IR energy in the lab, but the dynamics of our planet are much more complex than just assuming that heat energy is “trapped”. Convection and evaporation together transfer far more energy from the surface (think oceans here, not land) than is absorbed by GHGs. We don’t actually know in detail just how the balance is changed by perturbations in… Read more »

BobD
Guest
BobD

“Regarding the sudden dive in ocean temps while CO2 is high: do you think that might be caused by higher cloud cover when it’s warmer?”
I’ve no idea, but it could be. You’d have to show correlation between high temps and cloud cover as a start, but I don’t think it’s the case.

What I do know is that whatever else is driving the planetary temperature variations in the historical Vostok data, CO2 is the follower, not the leader.

Andy
Guest
Andy

The other thing we know about Vostok is that Al Gore used it in his movie to “prove” that CO2 was a driver of climate.

In other words, he is a liar, though that shouldn’t come as any surprise, given that he is a politician

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

Anyone familiar with Dennis Horne’s & William of Ockham’s invective can see that Stephanie Hawking is just another false front for Dennis’ venom.

BobD
Guest
BobD

“Al Gore used it in his movie to “prove” that CO2 was a driver of climate.”
That’s right, and I believe James Hansen was the scientific consultant on that movie. They knew already in 2003 that CO2 lags temperature, but why ruin a good story?

So you’ll notice Gore uses carefully-scripted phrasing in the movie. He implies they “fit together” without explicitly stating that CO2 leads temperature in his chart, which they all knew it didn’t.

BobD
Guest
BobD

Richard,

Yes, but the major point here is that their theory only works one way:
In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.

OK, so now they must please explain how the temperature suddenly dives down in spite of the high CO2. Temperature utterly ignores this super climate knob that supposedly drives it. It simply drops like a stone, leaving CO2 to follow it later.

In other words, there can not be causation between CO2 and temperature if temperature is unaffected by CO2.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Feedbacks work both ways Bob. If something causes the oceans to cool, they can then absorb more CO2 and the cooler atmosphere potentially holds less water vapour as well.
This is the first time that there has been a species that emits CO2 in large quantities. There have been large scale combustion events and methane releases in the past but they have tended to be one-offs.
Time for you to read up on climate sensitivities, there is a huge body of work there. There is high confidence that the ECS is somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C.
There is an interesting paper out this week suggesting that +2 °C above pre-industrial is not a stable state and we could be heading for hotter. Are you prepared to take that risk? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180806152040.htm

BobD
Guest
BobD

Richard

CO2 in the “lab” quite definitely causes warming, yes. But, as per my argument above, we have actual proof, via Vostok, that our global climate system does not respond as simply as in the lab. There are other avenues available for heat-shedding, such that CO2 does not in reality control atmospheric temperature. Rather, it follows it.

Andy
Guest
Andy

“There is high confidence that the ECS is somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C.”

This is the range that was suggested around 30 years ago. For a science that gets heaps of funding and public exposure, it seems a little disappointing that we haven’t made much progress in this key metric.

Simon
Guest
Simon

That is the unfortunate consequence of a nonlinear system. The bounds are well defined but not where we might end up within those bounds. Unfortunately there is no precedent in the paleoclimatic record.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

The models at the base of all scenarios have not been validated because they cannot be. All that follows is fraud, fraud,fraud. This has been admitted, but glossed over by folk whose admitted (we have their words) aim is the destruction of Western civilisation. It is known as Treason.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

The Charney Report, basis of CAGW, was a wild guess, from loose models:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/05/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-324/

BobD – Allmendinger’s expts show CO2 and Argon absorbing NIR at similar rates. Lab IR heating is more of the glass first….. Maxwell noted that the atmosphere acted differently and the Gas Laws rule via the Poisson relation (Theory of Heat). Shown by real experts from Woods to Klein (Mylar baloons to minimise container effects), to be true empirically.

BobD
Guest
BobD

Brett,

Yes, the school-level “experiments” conducted with coke bottles are completely wrong, for the reasons you mention. However, that doesn’t mean GHGs don’t absorb IR energy, they do. But the planet’s energy system is complex, and appears to be self-regulating. Energy will be lost, and there are several ways this happens, such that heat is not necessarily “trapped” in the atmosphere. Energy in will equal energy out, come what may.

To me the point is that we have actual empirical evidence (Vostok) that CO2 cannot prevent heat escaping the planet. Therefore CO2 is not a strong regulator of the temperature of the planet. Other forces are much more powerful. In fact, it’s hard, from the evidence, to see how CO2 could even be called a weak regulator. It is completely powerless to prevent a sudden drop in planetary temperature.

Simon
Guest
Simon

This is the paper to read if you are interested in the Vostok ice cores: https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt7rx4413n/qt7rx4413n.pdf
Greenhouse gases contribute roughly half of the glacial–interglacial temperature change.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

Bob, I have experimental evidence from Herr Allmendinger (qv) showing CO2 to absorb energy from NIR (more powerful than IR, and used for signalling by plants), at similar rates to the far more plentiful Argon. All such is instantly thermalised of course and expands at vast speed. The resultant buoyancy contributes with LH of water vapour to equipartition which bypasses the LT radiative soup to dominate return of energy to space. Gases are not solids, so the run under the gas laws and Poisson relation. ALL GASES. Because they have degrees of freedom and room to do so. Gas specie is irrelevant in this. Study of Maxwell’s “Theory of Heat” should be compulsory to all warmists (grin, some chance!). Also RW Wood, Berthold Klein -Mylar balloon expt, and Konrad Hartmann’s expts, also Allmendinger’s. Not to mention the small matter of how Quantum Oscillations happen (a very small matter). Such things could get them out of their suicidal rut. I can’t make’em, so the Darwin Effect must just take ’em out full stop. We just wish to save the innocent…….. Simon, above, might wish to demonstrate a physical mechanism if he can.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/08/northwest-passage-voyages-on-ice-for-2018/

From Tony Heller, what we predicted, the end approaches. Watch for the doomist “we will all freeze” claims again in about six months as AMOC cycles normally, and Quiet Sun conditions add to it. Yes, I do remember the last time round, from my sister in America. Insane. We were almost young then, in 1979.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane
Simon
Guest
Simon

Most of those localised examples are from the mid-Holocene (6000-7000 years ago) which was quite warm. On average though, it is warmer today. Our current state is more analogous to the mid-Pliocene (3-4 million years ago).
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

During the mid-Pliocene there was mixed Southern beech vegetation growing in coastal Antarctica.
Coniferous forests extended far north in the Northern Hemisphere into areas that now support moss-lichen tundra or are Arctic Deserts.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0377839895000518
I think it is generally accepted that around NZ temps were on average 2-3degC warmer than present.
https://www.victoria.ac.nz/sgees/about/events/past-events-archived/mid-pliocene-3.3-3-ma-sea-level-reconstructions-from-the-whanganui-basin,-new-zealand

(Now where did all that CO2 come from in the Mid Pliocene – 400ppm)?

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

@Richard…
I assume you are being ironic re the Neanderthals…
but just in case there are some school kids on this site…
Homo neanderthalenis 430,000 – 40,000 yr BP
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-were-the-neanderthals.html

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

It gets old fast when porkies keep being offered…. Not only mid-pliocene but every other peak including the last, MWP, were warmer than now. NZ has well-backed lakebed volcanic-constrained pollen sample proof. For instance.
I will not make any wild claims about the now-started AMOC/Quiet Sun cooling, except that our foes will be doing so again. This time about warming causing cooling. Oceans are cooling by the day and, not having experienced before what is happening (solar drop in UHF- UV), I do not know yet. Hope we are wrong.
Neanderthals may not have mastered sewing’ by which folk can be snug in the arctic now. But our direct ancestors did, and thrived in comparison. Just my tuppence worth.

BobD
Guest
BobD

Mitochondrial Eve is, I believe, currently dated to around 130,000 years ago. Y-chromosome Adam dates to roughly the same age (130,000 years).

Older genus-level variants (eg: Homo habilis or Homo erectus) are apparently not “anatomically modern humans”. Homo sapiens is the only surviving species from the Homo genus.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

comment image
From IPCC. It is a wavy downslope from 8-6000 BC, to now. No sign that will change outside of La La Land.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

Maggie, reason I mentioned sewing is that it just might explain why we were driven out of northern latitudes every glaciation, until the last. Then we outbred the strong, skilful and hardy neanderthals (and bred with them, so they are not extinct). The idea about sewing is my take on why, hardly certain but who can know anyway? We shall see. Brett

BobD
Guest
BobD

Richard,

All consistent. The “Adam & Eve” from DNA studies don’t preclude the existence of earlier humans, just not directly related to us I guess. According to “Out of Africa” ideas there were various migrations out of Africa over many years. A lot of speculation and competing theories though, I don’t know enough about it, but it’s certainly an interesting topic.
Wikipedia may be vaguely reliable on this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

I visited the “Cradle of Humanity” area in South Africa a few years back (cycling – we stopped for a snack next to a wire fence. Looking through it, we realised we were being watched by a pride of lions), and I remember as a kid going on a guided tour through the Sterkfontein caves, using only candles for illumination. Pretty damn scary.

Tools of course were used by early hominids (not just humans) from much further back.

Post Navigation